The Democratic Party of Korea remained silent on the 21st in relation to the request by the National Assembly Ethics Special Committee Ethics Review Advisory Committee the previous day for the highest level of discipline, ‘expelling a member of the National Assembly,’ for independent member Kim Nam-guk, who had withdrawn amidst the virtual asset transaction controversy. People inside and outside the party continued to demand that “the party must take a responsible position if it is an issue of this magnitude,” but the party leadership, including CEO Lee Jae-myeong, avoided commenting at all.
While Rep. Kim protested against the advisory committee’s recommendation for expulsion, saying, “It is questionable whether objective and fair standards have been applied in a fair way,” some of the pro-Lee Jae-myeong (pro-Lee Jae-myung) top members raised controversy over fairness and started to “protect Kim Nam-guk.”
● Kim Nam-guk, the highest rank in the field who did not mentionDemocratic Party spokesman Kang Seon-woo met with reporters after the Supreme Council meeting on the 21st and said, “There was no discussion (related to Rep. Representative Lee set the day only on pending issues such as the government’s ruling party’s response to flood damage 바카라without mentioning the situation of Congressman Kim in the opening remarks that day, and other top members did the same. A key official in the hospital showed a cautious appearance, saying, “I will take a good look at the data reported to the Special Committee on Ethics.” The party’s avoidance of officially mentioning Rep. Kim is interpreted because of concerns that it could cause misunderstanding that it is trying to lower the level of disciplinary action.
However, criticism came from inside and outside the party that the ‘silence’ itself was irresponsible. Former member of the Democratic Party, Geum Tae-seop, said on SBS Radio that day, “I am really disappointed with the Democratic Party.”
The Democratic Party’s’Kim Eun-kyung Innovation Committee’ also urged “a responsible attitude at the party level”. Chairman Kim Eun-kyung said, “We are seriously looking at (recommendation for expulsion of Rep. Kim).”
After receiving and reviewing the advisory committee review report on the 24th and 25th, the Ethics Committee will hold a plenary meeting immediately after the plenary session of the National Assembly on the 27th to review the disciplinary action for Congressman Kim.
● Pro-myeong leadership, ‘non-exclusion theory’ disarming the armyRep. Kim protested on Facebook that day, saying, “I regret the recommendation for expulsion,” and “I wonder if objective and fair standards have been applied in a fair way.” Some of the top committee members who were close to Rep. Kim also added that “fairness is important.”
Park Chan-dae, the top commissioner, said on MBC radio, “We also need to consider the issue of fairness with lawmakers who voluntarily report that they have virtual assets.” According to the ethics review advisory committee the previous day, all 299 members of the National Assembly submitted virtual asset holdings and transaction details, and 11 of them revealed that they had held virtual assets. The advisory committee will soon disclose the names and amounts of such proposals, and if there is a potential conflict of interest, it will be notified to the Speaker of the National Assembly and the floor leadership of each party.
Supreme Council member Jang Gyeong-tae also said on CBS radio, “I don’t think expulsion is easy (at the time of voting at the plenary session). ” The disciplinary proposal is finalized only when two-thirds or more of the current members of the National Assembly vote in favor of it.